These intrinsics, not the icmp+select are the canonical form nowadays,
so we might as well directly emit them.
This should not cause any regressions, but if it does,
then then they would needed to be fixed regardless.
Note that this doesn't deal with `SCEVExpander::isHighCostExpansion()`,
but that is a pessimization, not a correctness issue.
Additionally, the non-intrinsic form has issues with undef,
see https://reviews.llvm.org/D88287#2587863
We were failing to compute trip counts (both exact and maximum) for any loop which involved a comparison against either an umin or smin. It looks like this simply got missed when we added smin/umin to SCEV. (Note: umin was submitted separately earlier today. Turned out two folks hit this at the same time.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67514
llvm-svn: 371776
If the given SCEVExpr has no (un)signed flags attached to it, transfer
these to the resulting instruction or use them to find an existing
instruction.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61934
llvm-svn: 362687
Summary:
Currently we express umin as `~umax(~x, ~y)`. However, this becomes
a problem for operands in non-integral pointer spaces, because `~x`
is not something we can compute for `x` non-integral. However, since
comparisons are generally still allowed, we are actually able to
express `umin(x, y)` directly as long as we don't try to express is
as a umax. Support this by adding an explicit umin/smin representation
to SCEV. We do this by factoring the existing getUMax/getSMax functions
into a new function that does all four. The previous two functions were
largely identical.
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50167
llvm-svn: 360159
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
In the patch rL329547, we have lifted the over-restrictive limitation on collected range
checks, allowing to work with range checks with the end of their range not being
provably non-negative. However it appeared that the non-negativity of this value was
assumed in the utility function `ClampedSubtract`. In particular, its reasoning is based
on the fact that `0 <= SINT_MAX - X`, which is not true if `X` is negative.
The function `ClampedSubtract` is only called twice, once with `X = 0` (which is OK)
and the second time with `X = IRC.getEnd()`, where we may now see the problem if
the end is actually a negative value. In this case, we may sometimes miscompile.
This patch is the conservative fix of the miscompile problem. Rather than rejecting
non-provably non-negative `getEnd()` values, we will check it for non-negativity in
runtime. For this, we use function `smax(smin(X, 0), -1) + 1` that is equal to `1` if `X`
is non-negative and is equal to 0 if `X` is negative. If we multiply `Begin, End` of safe
iteration space by this function calculated for `X = IRC.getEnd()`, we will get the original
`[Begin, End)` if `IRC.getEnd()` was non-negative (and, thus, `ClampedSubtract` worked
correctly) and the empty range `[0, 0)` in case if ` IRC.getEnd()` was negative.
So we in fact prohibit execution of the main loop if at least one of range checks was
made against a negative value (and we figured it out in runtime). It is still better than
what we have before (non-negativity had to be proved in compile time) and prevents
us from miscompile, however it is sometiles too restrictive for unsigned range checks
against a negative value (which in fact can be eliminated).
Once we re-implement `ClampedSubtract` in a way that it handles negative `X` correctly,
this limitation can be lifted, too.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46860
Reviewed By: samparker
llvm-svn: 332809
Roman Lebedev